← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hamilton
Thread ID: 20390 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2005-09-25
2005-09-25 10:55 | User Profile
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Mr. Lind poses the question, "Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.?" L.A.? Well...
Seriously, Lind could well prove prescient here.
[/size][/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=6]War With China?[/size][/font][/size][/font]
[center][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]**[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by [email="pehughes@freecongress.org"]William S. Lind[/email]
[size=1][/size][/font]**[/size][/font]
[/center] [font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]I regard a war with China ââ¬â hot or cold ââ¬â as perhaps the greatest strategic blunder the United States could make, beyond those it has already made. The end result would be the same as that from the 20th century wars between Britain and Germany: it reduced both to second-rate powers. In the 21st century, the real victors would be the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation, who would fill the gap created by the reduction of both Chinese and American power.
[/size][/font] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Given my foreboding ââ¬â in George W. Bushââ¬â¢s Washington, it seems the rule is that any blunder we can make, we will make ââ¬â I was struck by the title of Robert D. Kaplanââ¬â¢s article in the June Atlantic Monthly, "How We Would Fight China." Kaplan has written some excellent material on the breakdown of the state and the rise of non-state elements.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Here, however, I think he gets it wrong. Kaplan sees the 21st century being defined by a new Cold War between China and the United States, rather than the clash between states and non-state forces. I believe this phenomenon will be far more century-shaping than any conflict between states.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]While Kaplan writes about how the U.S. could use naval power ââ¬â subtly ââ¬â to contain a rising China, within the framework of a Bismarckian Realpolitik that accommodates everyoneââ¬â¢s interests, he recognizes the danger to all of a Cold War turning hot. He writes, "Only a similarly pragmatic approach (similar to Bismarckââ¬â¢s) will allow us to accommodate Chinaââ¬â¢s inevitable re-emergence as a great power. The alternative will be to turn the earth of the twenty-first century into a battleground."
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Regrettably, there are influential voices in Washington that want a war with China, the sooner the better. The most likely cause is Taiwan. Few in Washington understand why China is so adamant about Taiwan remaining officially part of China. The reason is Chinaââ¬â¢s history, throughout which her greatest threat has not been foreign invasion but internal division. China has often fractured, sometimes into many parts. Today, Beijing fears that if one province, Taiwan, achieves independence, others will follow. China will go to war, including with the United States, to prevent that from happening.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Correctly, Kaplan observes that China is not able to successfully fight a sea and air war with America:
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]China has committed itself to significant military spending, but its navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]So how would China fight us? If we send some carrier battle groups to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan, I think China will do something Kaplan does not mention. She will go nuclear at sea from the outset.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]When the Cold War ended, we found out that the Soviet Union planned to do exactly that (so much for Reagan Administration plans to send our carriers charging up to the Kola Peninsula). The Chinese might employ nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, fired from submarines or surface ships, but I think her little surprise for us may be nastier. Kaplan briefly mentions that China "may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific" from deep in Chinese territory. I think those missiles, ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, may be ready now ââ¬â perhaps with a bit of clandestine targeting assistance from a Russia whose sphere of influence the United States is aggressively invading.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]The Chinese way of war is indirect. In most cases, that means China will engage us with "soft power," as she is already doing on multiple fronts. But in the case of American intervention in a Taiwan crisis, what if a Chinese ballistic missile popped a nuke say, 100 miles from an advancing American carrier battle group? No one gets hurt, but the message would be loud and clear: keep coming and youââ¬â¢re toast.
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]If we kept coming anyway and the Chinese did nuke a carrier, we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesnââ¬â¢t have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.?
[/size][/font] [/left] [left][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]The right answer, as Kaplan recognizes, is donââ¬â¢t go to war with China. Perhaps if someone could talk to Karl Rove about the importance of the Chinese vote . . .[/size][/font] [/left] [font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=2][url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html"][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind65.html [/size][/font][/url][/size][/font]
2005-09-25 11:16 | User Profile
As Lind points out, China's a huge country with many potential fault lines. China is in a time of rapid growth and change. The Chinese may need a war to reinforce the ties that bind their nation together. Few things can unify like war.
A product of the infanticide policy, China has a shortage of females, and superabundance of young males. Many of these males are unemployed, and many more are at least impoverished. War could be the perfect employer for these lonely youth.
2005-09-25 12:56 | User Profile
China not only lacks females, it lacks oil, and for that matter, water. In the long run, the banks and the government will, of course, damage their economy, as they always do in every country. The U.S. doesn't want to fight such a a fragile, desperate country. They'd lose, big time, against us, but it would always damage us, possibly permanently. It's not worth it.
One of my friends, a Filipina, told me there is such a shortage of females in China that the men are seeking foreign wives, such as those from Korea. I mentioned to her Asian men cannot get a white girlfriend to save their lives because they are not considered masculine or attractive, and she said, "Yes, they already know that."
2005-09-25 13:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]China not only lacks females, it lacks oil, and for that matter, water. True.
The U.S. doesn't want to fight such a a fragile, desperate country. They'd lose, big time, against us, but it would always damage us, possibly permanently. It's not worth it. They would lose? The North Vietnamese Army didn't lose against us. And unlike the NVA, China has a billion people and nukes. China is also developing a new long-range missile delivery system, along with various short-range systems. China is rapidly developing into an economic powerhouse, and likely a military one as well. I'm curious as to why you assume we would win a war against the Chinese. I agree that whatever the outcome, there would likely be serious damage to the U.S.
2005-09-25 13:09 | User Profile
[I][B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial] - "They would lose? The North Vietnamese Army didn't lose against us."[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/B] [/I]
Vietnam didn't lose against the Chinese either, they whipped them in 1979. [SIZE=4][COLOR=Blue][B] Sino-Vietnamese War 1979[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/vat/vietnam/fchinavietnam1979.htm[/url]
Petr
2005-09-25 13:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]*[font=Arial][color=DarkRed][font=Arial] - "They would lose? The North Vietnamese Army didn't lose against us."[/font][/color][/font] *
Vietnam didn't lose against the Chinese either, they whipped them in 1979. [size=4][color=Blue] Sino-Vietnamese War 1979[/color][/size]
[url="http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/vat/vietnam/fchinavietnam1979.htm"]http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/vat/vietnam/fchinavietnam1979.htm[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE] There's actually a lot of debate as to who really won. Both sides declared victory.
"There is debate as to whether the Chinese withdrew entirely of their own volition or whether they were forced to withdraw by Vietnamese defenders ââ¬â both sides of the conflict described themselves as the victor.... There is also debate about who "won" the war in the political sense. The answer most likely depends on what one believes each side's objectives to have been."
[url="http://www.answers.com/topic/sino-vietnamese-war"]http://www.answers.com/topic/sino-vietnamese-war[/url]
The Vietnamese clearly regard China as no laughing matter:
"The legacy of the war is lasting, especially in Vietnam. Today Vietnam maintains one of the world's largest armies, which some attribute almost entirely to fear of China."
Anyway, I don't think we can assume that the U.S. would whip the Chinese in any war. But I'd be curious to read any well-considered argument otherwise.
2005-09-25 14:08 | User Profile
They would lose?
We wouldn't be in a land war with them. We'd do the same thing to them we did to Iraq--destroy their infrastructure and let disease and starvation takes its toll. A blockade, if you will. Not that I agree with it. We don't need to reduce China or ourselves to third-rate powers because we can't get figure out how to get along with the place.
2005-09-25 14:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]We wouldn't be in a land war with them. We'd do the same thing to them we did to Iraq--destroy their infrastructure and let disease and starvation takes its toll. A blockade, if you will. One problem with this limited approach is that China is not Iraq. It is many, many times bigger in every way, and far from an international pariah. Tough UN sanctions on China? Please. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council! An effective blockade would require strong backing from the EU and Russia, for starters. Can you see that coming easy? Not I. France even calls restrictions on arms sales to China "anachronistic." Hardly any countries recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, while many support the One China policy. If China forcibly annexes Taiwan, don't expect the EU to support tough intervention, let alone join in. On America/Taiwan's side, that is... :tongue:
We don't need to reduce China or ourselves to third-rate powers because we can't get figure out how to get along with the place.[/QUOTE] I hope we avoid it.
2005-09-25 15:12 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "Tough UN sanctions on China? Please. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council!"[/B][/I][/COLOR][/FONT]
I think he means [B]wartime [/B]blockade - blowing up their oil pipelines and things like that.
Petr
2005-09-25 15:24 | User Profile
You want to stop Red China short of war? [B]Don't[/B] buy their products. It is the consumers of this country along with "Capitalists", i.e., Wall Street Journal thinking, that are making them into a theat.
2005-09-25 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]You want to stop Red China short of war? [B]Don't[/B] buy their products. It is the consumers of this country along with "Capitalists", i.e., Wall Street Journal thinking, that are making them into a theat.[/QUOTE] Exactly! But ... have you recently tried NOT buying China made products?
2005-09-25 15:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][font=Arial][color=DarkRed] - "Tough UN sanctions on China? Please. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council!"[/color][/font]
I think he means wartime blockade - blowing up their oil pipelines and things like that.
Petr[/QUOTE] Yes. Our wartime blockade of Iraq was given a huge boost by UN sanctions. Without the latter, the former would not have been as easily achieved. Meanwhile, China is a nascent industrial giant, a big player in the world community, with a population literally fifty times larger than Iraq's. Unlike Iraq, China hasn't been softened up by decades of embargoes and sanctions. Instead, she's gleefully eaten up half of our manufacturing base. Her economy is growing by leap and bounds. She's spending serious cash on missile systems, attack subs, and military modernization. Is this the sort of regime that the U.S. can blockade unilaterally? No, not with any safe assumption that we'll win. Who would cooperate with us? France supports China's position vis-a-vis Taiwan, and they just signed a $4b trade deal. The French also support zero restrictions on arms sales to China. Not a likely candidate there. The Russians have been doing joint military exercises with China, and they also share military intel and technology. Without their help, how could the U.S. succeed at any wartime blockade on China?
2005-09-25 15:51 | User Profile
I doubt that Russians would sacrifice themselves for the sake of Chinese, and China is very oil-dependent, vulnerable on that front.
Petr
2005-09-25 15:54 | User Profile
Red China- built by US [I]"Capitalists"[/I]. Just like the USSR and to a lesser extent, Nazi Germany. Anything for [I]"profit"[/I] and to hell with everything else. ==============
CW, your point well taken. I do everything possible to avoid buying things made by the PRC.
2005-09-25 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I doubt that Russians would sacrifice themselves for the sake of Chinese, and China is very oil-dependent, vulnerable on that front.
Petr[/QUOTE] Sacrifice themselves? The real question is whether Americans, at least in the near future, would sacrifice their cheap China-made goodies to save Taiwan. To ask the question is to answer it.
If we want war with China, we should have thought about that before outsourcing half of our economy to the Chinese. :furious:
2005-09-25 16:21 | User Profile
Speaking of Russia...
(From an article by Chuck Baldwin, recent VP candidate for the Constitution Party)
"The Washington Times recently reported that "China soon will receive a new Kilo submarine from Russia, part of a naval buildup of modern warships and submarines that has triggered new fears for U.S. military planners.
"It is the first of eight advanced Kilos that China is acquiring, and intelligence officials say the submarine will be outfitted with advanced SS-N-27 cruise missiles, which are capable of attacking U.S. warships. Since 2002, China has built 14 submarines."
The Times report quoted one intelligence official as saying, "China's surface-to-air missile forces also are increasing, including new short- and long-range missiles, along with a new warhead that can maneuver to avoid missile defenses.
"If you take a step back and look at the entire array of Chinese weapons, the Kilos, the Songs, the Yuans, the ballistic missiles, this [maneuverable warhead] capability, more surface ships with anti-ship cruise missiles, these are all things that are going to give you capability to deal with any kind of naval force that comes toward you."
The China Reform Monitor recently ran a report saying, "Experts are warning that China is outpacing the United States in the development of attack submarines and could have as much as a three-to-one advantage over the United States by 2025."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently warned that "China's investment in missiles and up-to-date military technology posed a risk not only to Taiwan and to American interests, but also to nations across Asia that view themselves as China's trading partners, not rivals."
Most all China experts agree that the Marxist government in Beijing is planning to attack Taiwan and is preparing to take on the United States if we interfere. It has more than doubled its fleet of amphibious landing and troop-carrying ships. It has entered into an agreement with Russia which guarantees Russia will not help the United States should conflict erupt between the U.S. and China. And just weeks ago, China even participated in joint military maneuvers with Russia. But the Chinese threat is actually even more ominous.
Syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas, recently quoted from a new book written by former special assistant for national security affairs to Ronald Reagan and CIA national intelligence officer, Constantine Menges, entitled, China: The Gathering Threat. Thomas quotes Menges as noting that "China has defined America as its 'main enemy' and can launch nuclear weapons at the U.S. capable of killing 100 million of us.
Thomas continues quoting Menges as saying, "China has threatened to destroy entire American cities if the U.S. helps Taiwan defend itself against a military assault or invasion. China also buys Russian weapons designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. It controls more than $200 billion in U.S. debt and sells more than 40 percent of its exports to America, using the profits to strengthen its economy and advanced weapons systems aimed at the U.S."
[url]http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8518[/url]
What a lovely hole we've dug for ourselves...
2005-09-25 16:26 | User Profile
Considering the symbiotic relationship, a war between our two countries would wreck both societies. Why would multinationals, billionaires, or neo-cons desire war with China over Taiwan?